{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

They help the bank liable for not checking the proper

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
“For deposit only to the credit of Presbytery of Lehigh Ernest Hutcheson, Treas.” They help the bank liable for not checking the proper account information displayed on the checks. Courts considering the significance of a restrictive indorsement have consistently concluded that the UCC imposes an unwaivable obligation upon the bank to follow the indorsement. The defendant's theory: Mary Ann Hunsberger attempted to fraud her employer by depositing the checks illegally by hand writing her own account number on the checks. The legal issue: Was the bank bond to follow the restrictive indorsements on the 153 checks that instead had deposited to the person account of Hunsberger? The holding of the court: Yes: 3-206 Restrictive Indorsements I do believe the courts reversed the judgment for Lehigh was the correct decision. Initially, I would have thought that Lehigh was responsible under Fraudulent Indorsements by Employees. The fact that Lehigh put in place the restriction for the instrument protected their assets in the long run. Mary Ann should also be held liable for her fraudulent activities. Mallor, J., Barnes, A. J., Bowers, L. T., & Langvardt, A. (2013). Business Law, the Ethical, Global, and e-Commerce Environment. McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.
  • Summer '13
  • link
  • Cheque, Deposit account, Lehigh Presbytery, Mary Ann Hunsberger, Presbytery of Lehigh Ernest Hutcheson, Lehigh Ernest Hutcheson

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online